User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 020

click here to leave a new message for BrownHairedGirl
BrownHairedGirl's archives
+ Cumulative index

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on my current talk page

AfD nomination of List of airlines of New Brunswick

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of airlines of New Brunswick, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines of New Brunswick. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Whenaxis (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

As you continue with your disruptive editing, I have had no choice but to start an ANI thread here. Jeni ^(talk) 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Still trolling, Jeni? I thought you were taking a break. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BHG, with respect, I think that you (as an admin) need to avoid making comments like that. Aiken ♫ 00:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aiken, maybe I should have found a more diplomatic word. But the endless attempt to use procedural devices to prevent community scrutiny of articles passed as "notable" under the WP:GNG-ignoring guidelines at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article is getting a bit wearing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto=size

Thanks for your comments. I had a question, see here. –xeno^talk 05:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will reply there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Sandboxes

Hi, you seem to know a lot about deletion on WP. How would I go about getting some of my sandboxed deleted? Please could you reply on my talk page. Thanks a lot Welshleprechaun 15:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

{{db-u2}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Thanks a lot. Welshleprechaun 16:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I meant {{db-u1}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

List nom?

I noticed on the Ireland assessment page that List of artists who have released Irish language songs was being questioned for WP:NOTREPOSITORY and/or WP:STAND. Perhaps you would nominate it if you think it qualifies as I am not up on list reasoning. ww2censor (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I haven't time to check it out now, but will take a look later. May take a few days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Capital City Green/Red

This is just being stubborn now. All editors that have commented have said keep. Are you actually waiting to see if anyone will agree with you? Or are you just being stubborn out of spite because this hasn't gone your way? Welshleprechaun 16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's a mtter of insisting hat we have a reasoned discussion rather than avote.

Deletion discussions are not a vote, and a closing admin should not count heads. Nobody has provided evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:GNG, and a proper closure should take that into consideration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I realise that it is not a vote, but when all other editors have said keep, there is a very strong consensus. Several editors have pointed out the evidence and it is beyond me that why you have failed to see this. Welshleprechaun 16:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Several refs, but no substantial coverage. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green, the strongest example is a 180-word snippet.

If a pile-on of WP:ILIKEIT voters wants to ignore the evidence, that's up to them, but the criteria in WP:GNG are clear. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

discussion moved back to User talk:Okip

Bullying and harassment

You know the rules Brown hair girl, yet you continue to harass me to no end. First by templating me for something that is strictly within the rules, then by sending me to ANI, and now attempting to delete my article. Your behavior is abhorrent for an editor, let alone for an administrator who should be an example to others. Okip 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Okip_canvassing.

It's really really simple: don't engage in votestacking, and nobody will warn you about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

New route article

Hi, what do you think of this? Just created it. The only other Manchester bus route I can find is Greater Manchester bus route 192. Manchester is probably the second biggest bus transport system in the UK after London so this is surprising. Aiken ♫ 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Made by Inkscape tag

I know I missed the chance to participate in the discussion but...

I noticed you changed may Made by Inkscape tag. As the link to Inkscape still exists it is not a big issue for my, however...

You wrote.

There is no benefit to either readers or editors in advertising the software used to create an image. Images are usually uploaded in a format editable by any of a wide range of software, so the information is irrelevant to anyone who wants to modify the image.

This is simply not true. My Inkscape images (mostly on Wikicommons) contain alot of information about how to modify them. The information is outside the borders of the image.(transformation numbers, building blocks, in one case a detailed discussion, ect.) Also the image is divided into layers. This information can only be accessed by someone who modifies it using Inkscape. In the information section on the image page I note this, So again, it is not a big issue for me.

That being said I support the old tags because I believe in supporting Open Source, non-profit programs. It is not "advertising" in any negative sense. Being a Wikipedian, I'm a little surprised that you don't believe in supporting such community efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave3457 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry duplication?

Hello, there. I have come across a bizarre case of possible duplication which I thought might interest you. "First National Ministry" and "First National Government 1931" cover the same subject and feature similar lists, yet they link to each other through unformatted hatnotes. The navigational complexity doesn't stop there: both articles feature the Ministries navbox, even though only the former is included in the navbox, and both articles also feature succession boxes, but only "First National Government 1931" is properly placed in the succession chain. Indeed, thanks to a bad redirect, the "First National Ministry" article links in the succession box's successor cell to its own duplicate!

Yet it turns out they might not be duplicates after all. Trying to piece together the history of this curious mess, I was confronted with indications that the two articles were probably intended to co-exist; the histories match in places, and certain editors (including you) have edited the two pages in the same time periods. I do understand that the terms government and ministry may have different meanings, and indeed, the nature of the lists in "List of British ministries" and "List of British Governments" seem to confirm this, yet the terms are not explained in the two articles in question (or anywhere else, except in "Ministry (collective executive)"), and even appear to be used interchangeably (something also suggested in "Her Majesty's Government (term)"). The duplication of the navigational templates simply completes a picture of perfect confusion—one would have thought that the navbox would be used for the ministries and the succession box chain for the governments, but in most cases there is only one article, combining both. And instead of finding a wider problem in clearly distinguishing two series of similar articles, one for ministries and one for governments, I am yanked back to my original hypothesis that what we have here may be simply... a duplicate article.

Some help sorting this out would be much appreciated. Waltham, The Duke of 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the "ministry" articles are supposed to list the Prime Minister and Cabinet only, while the "government" articles are supposed to cover all members of the Government, including very junior functionaries. I admit that I've tried straightening some of this out in the past but haven't the strength to do this right now. Choess (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. Well, I have fixed the navigation (removing the duplication of the templates and correcting the redirect), but that is as far as I'm willing to go. With some of the confusing elements removed, I hope this counts as sufficient improvement until someone decides to do a more comprehensive job. Waltham, The Duke of 22:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Athlete edit/removal

Hello, a while ago we discussed removing WP:Athlete. I didn't see any propositions go up, so I decided to go ahead and do that. I basically proposed 2 options. One is to make WP athlete shorter, and more exclusive by requiring that all athletes need to compete at the highest level of their sport potentially for an extended period of time. It makes no sense that a local Joe Shmo golfer who qualifies for a PGA tournament on his local golf course never to compete in another event again gets a page without meeting WP:GNG. The other option I proposed, as we seemed to be in agreement on, was deleting WP:ATHLETE altogether. Could you weigh in on the discussion. I will try and put a call for comment very soon, after I figure out how to do this. Thanks, MATThematical (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar notice

		The Modest Barnstar
		Awarded for an unlikely outbreak of common sense at ANI. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip @ ANI

He's not this guy. Don't think so, anyway ...   pablo_hablo. 13:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have met Lembit Opik and can confirm that they are not the same person. But you now have me wondering whether BHG is a cheeky girl ... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So have I, but I've never met Okip.   pablo_hablo. 15:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Who's met who? Well, I had never met Okip until the last few days, and then only virtually. I did meet Öpik earlier this year, and thought that the tabloids had been much much much much too kind to him. So am I a cheeky girl??? Well, certainly not one of Öpik's girls, anyway  ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need Category:Users who have met Lembit Öpik, early results indicate it would have a lot of members ...   pablo_hablo. 22:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as there is no inference that I met him in the biblical sense :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I try to 'assume good taste'.   pablo_hablo. 14:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68

Hi BHG, do you think that was a good close? He seems to be ignoring the consideration that some of us still felt it did not meet GNG even after expansion with trivia about buses, thus kept their vote to delete, and only one person I can see actually changed their vote to keep. Is it worth DRV? Aiken ♫ 15:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This one is confusing too - he says there are 3 valid keeps. I don't see a single one! Aiken ♫ 15:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Aiken. I have been busy the last few days and won't be back at my desk properly until this evening. But briefly, the close of 331 was utterly perverse, both on on a vote-counting logic and on a weighing-arguments logic.

Number 68 is a classic piece of Col W's "rescue" work: hurl abuse at the nominator, add a batch of references to trivial mentions, and then triumphantly assert that there is significant coverage; when challenged to identify the substance in these few passing mentions, return to bluster. Note that Col W refuses to answer questions on how much coverage there is of the 68 in those articles, just that "Please explain your certainty that none of these references are substantial." This is a straightforward attempt to invert the burden of proof in WP:V. And the closer of the debate seems happy to let him away with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia entry page query and assistance

Hi Brownghaired girl,

Please can you help me, there appear to be quite a few errors on the wikipedia entry: The Sick-Leaves. I have tried to correct them but them but they still seem to be present or advise. Please can you assist if it is possible.

Thanks!

Mounta Hunta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain hunta (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I take it you are referring to The Sick-Leaves, and I see you added some references, but I don't know what you mean by errors which tried to correct still being present. Can you explain more? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Brownhaired girl,

Thanks for the prompt reply and your assistance. Yes, I am referring to The Sick-Leaves entry and I did add references to try complete the entry and assist with the errors listed. Below are the errors which are listed on the page. Are you familiar with them or know how they can be corrected?

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since December 2009. Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since October 2008. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2009.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain hunta (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cities, towns and villages

Hi, about a month go you add a category for deletion tag to all of the categories. Given that you withdrew the nomination, do you intend removing these CFD tags? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Young (documentarian)

Young "was cited by the Oxford American as one of the ten best southern documentaries of all time", and I believe you will find that it is accepted consensus that a filmmaker is known for his works. As Young's works are well reviewed, that notability is his as their creator, showing further notability per WP:GNG. More importantly, he is found notable per WP:ANYBIO in that he was the recipient of BOTH an Emmy Award and a National Award from the American Film Institute for his film Dancing Outlaw. With respects, and appreciating you may not agree, notability in this case does seem a lock. And one a different track, might you support the article being moved to Jacob Young (filmmaker)? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also discovered he received a 1988 PBS Special Achievement Award for his film Appalachian Junkumentary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Independent documentary filmmakers are sometimes among the most difficult to source, so thank you for THIS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Michael. I meant to reply here, but forgot ... however, the main thing was the responses to my question allayed my concern. Thanks to you and others for clarifying the issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on London Buses route E8. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jeni ^(talk) 17:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeni, it's really really really really really really really really simple: where there is disagreement over content, discuss the disagreement and try to reach consensus. That's what I have seen trying to do for over a week, but you and Col W appear to prefer tag-team reverting to actually discussing content, and you once again insereted inaccurate content wihich is not supported by the conflicting refs supplied.

Please do read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, and try to understand the importance of discussing disagreements rather than simply yelling "disruptive" whenever someone disagrees with you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Follow up upon multiple entries on Wikipedia entry

Hi Brownhaired girl, Thanks for the prompt reply and your assistance. Yes, I am referring to The Sick-Leaves entry and I did add references to try complete the entry and assist with the errors listed. Below are the errors which are listed on the page. Are you familiar with them or know how they can be corrected? This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since December 2009. Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. Tagged since October 2008. It may require general cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since January 2009.

Thanks.

Mountain Hunta §—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain hunta (talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The Mannering family of Terenure

I wonder could you have a quiet word with 68.100.42.159, an SPA who is continually adding a paragraph on the non-notable Mannering family to the Terenure article,[1] despite me asking them to stop?[2] This paragraph has been added at regular intervals, presumably by the same person at a series of IP addresses, literally for years.[3] At one point it even became an article,[4] which was speedy-deleted. Scolaire (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Scolaire

This doesn't seem to me to meet the criteria for semi-protection; it's a content dispute. So what I suggest is that you post a note about the content on the article's talk page, possibly just copying the text you posted at User_talk:68.100.42.159, and ask the editor to discuss it there.

Your research suggests that the content is factually wrong, and I note that the material was deleted by consensus as a standalone article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mannerings of Terenure, but it's a good idea to give the editor a chance to discuss it. If the discussion takes place on the article's talk page, then there will be a centralised record of it.

I have given the editor a final warning, but I think that it's a pity that nobody gave this editor a welcome to draw their attention to core poicies, so I have doe that too. Hope this helps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair point! I didn't think of that. Thanks for your help and advice. Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Parliamentary constituencies in London

Hi there, hope all is well with you. I've been fiddling with Category:Future parliamentary constituencies in London (now deleted) and Category:Parliamentary constituencies in London (historic). I understand that you originated many of these articles and may have an interest.

I hope that I've done them correctly, but always useful to have another pair of eyes if you're interested and have the time. I haven't added any candidate details ('xcepting a few local ones); as the nominations aren't closed (I believe). Take care. Kbthompson (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I'm kinda busy over the next few days, but I'll try to take a look. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

London Bus Routes (again)

I just discovered this by accident. Fancy you voting to Keep All on a bus route AfD! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mannering family again

Same edit, different IP address, no attempt at discussion on talk page. --Scolaire (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what's the best response, but I have semi-protected the Terenure page for one month. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully that will do it. Thanks. Scolaire (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Populated places

Please note that I've made 3 nominations for category renames after the success of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17#Category:Settlements. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 28. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Straw poll regarding assessing as stub based on pagesize of article

You had previously commented on this discussion; if possible, please weigh-in at the above straw poll. –xeno^talk 15:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Irish By Election Start3

Template:Irish By Election Start3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFD Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe

Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe is proposed for upmerge with Category:Rugby league governing bodies. You were involved in a related WP:CFD discussion (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 9) and may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 6#Category:Rugby league governing bodies in Europe. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD potentially of interest to you

Because you took part in the CfD on the associated category, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curly bracket programming language may interest you. Pcap ping 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Move page disacussion

You will be interested in Talk:Cameron_ministry#Needs_moving which may not be properly formed and which would reverberate elsewhere. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD Help?

Could you help me with one deletion. I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qassim Afzal (2nd nomination) but for some reason it's not showing up in the deletion discussions or the politicians for deletion discussion? Thanks in advance Valenciano (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, gotta run now, won't be back on line for at least 2 days ... but see the instructions at step 2 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion, and the subsequent steps.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Terenure again

I'm really sorry to bother you with this, but there's what appears to be a different anon adding and re-adding a different rubbish story to the Terenure article, this time concerning cow-pats and rugby scrums. Again, it's being added by different IP addresses: 27 March 2010 by 83.70.242.206 / 83.70.231.18, 26 May 2010 by 41.223.203.29, 1 June 2010 by 41.209.73.231 and 3 June 2010 by 41.209.74.215. On this occasion the anon did actually post on the talk page, saying that he'd heard the story from two old boys. But when I replied saying that the edit violated WP:NOR he just went ahead and re-added it, without an edit summary and without further discussion. I've posted welcome/warning messages at both User talk:41.209.73.231 and User talk:41.209.74.215, but I've no way of knowing if these will even be seen, if the editor has a different IP each time he logs on. I've just seen now that 83.70.242.206 / 83.70.231.18 added exactly the same paragraph to Terenure College, also on 27 March. I've reverted that too, with an edit summary linking to the Terenure talk page. Scolaire (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Scolaire, you've made every reasonable effort (and more!) to discuss this with an editor who won't engage, so I have indefinitely semi-protected both pages.

Indefinite protection is of course not infinite, so if the editor concerned does actually start to discuss the contested text rather than just spamming it in, then the protection may be lifted. But in the meantime it all looks a bit like vandalism, so rather than have this start up again as soon as the protection expires, it seems better to protect until the prob is sorted.

Well done you for monitoring this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again, BHG. Hopefully these people will get tired eventually. These smaller articles arguably benefit more from good faith anon edits. It's a shame that a couple of chancers spoil it for the others. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland

An article that you have been involved in editing, Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Mabuska ^(talk) 12:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Clement Edwards

Hi, BHG. Thanks for the redirection from the full name. After I did the page, I thought it was needed but you beat me to it. Tks for other help on the page too and contributions in the past. One query; what's the difference between Reflist and Reflist|2? Cheers, Graham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.110.224 (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2010

Hi Graham, no prob -- you're v welcome. It's a pleasure to encounter so many of the articles you have written: well-written and thoroughly-referenced articles on politicians from the early 20th century. My little tweaks are just a small thing compared to your big efforts!

I think you asked me before about {{reflist|2}}, and that I rudely didn't answer :( It's just a small thing: it makes the refs display in two columns on browsers which support that bit of CSS (e.g. Firefox). When an article is as well-referenced as yours it helps save a bit of scrolling and makes the refs easier to read.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28

What a mess. If things are not made consistent after all of this and half of the countries are named Cities, towns and villages and the other half Populated places in I blame nobody but you. They were pretty consistent before this uptightness about settlements before you started renaming them. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I love you too, baby. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox template

Hi, I've reverted your change to Template:Infobox for now. Adding a parameter to a meta-template is generally considered controversial and so should probably be proposed on the talk page first. Adding functionality which is likely to be of benefit to only a handful of templates is not normally a good idea because it complicates the meta-template and potentially affects the performance for the vast majority of uses. Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a pity. By reverting the change rather than discussing it first, you have broken the use I made of it.

I would have no objection to the reversion if you had spotted an actual problem caused by the new parameter, or even if the parameter added was something other than one more in a numbered series ... but I really can't see any problem in adding image3 to an existing series image1 & image2.

Please can you restore my change pending discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that I broke the one template (Template:Infobox UK constituency main) and one article (St Pancras North (UK Parliament constituency)) that was using this feature. However, per WP:BRD, the onus is on you to discuss the changes you want. The correct procedure would have been to start a thread on Template talk:Infobox first and ask for suggestions on how to implement the desired behaviour. I would generally support adding functionality if it will be useful to significant number of other templates. However there may be valid reasons why having three images in an infobox is not a good idea. And it is not appropriate to edit a meta-template with over half a million transclusions for the sake of one article! Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What's do you think?

Hi BHG, Maybe you can give me you opinion about some of the work done by a relatively new philatelic editor Gwillhickers who has started articles that concern me. He created U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps and is working on User:Gwillhickers/American History on US Postage Stamps. Both of these appear to be artificial, non-notable topics that are just an accumulation of random information. Some time ago he dumped around 100 images into Postage stamps and postal history of the United States overwhelming the prose which made the article look more like a stamp catalogue which already exists at wikibooks US World Stamp Catalogue and even though I trimmed out much of the overuse of images per the concept that images should complement the prose. I did post some advise on the talk page but, based on his new articles, he seems to ignore the image advise offered and, AFAIK, he has not interacted with anyone over this article. I am pretty unhappy about that article as it now stands but got fed up trying to do cleanup. Perhaps I am being over critical about this editor's work; I see him adding links elsewhere that appear inappropriate to me and I have remove or revised some. Thoughts? ww2censor (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi ww2c, and sorry for the slow reply.

I took a look, and although this is not my field, I see why you are concerned. Gwillhickers is evidently a careful and conscientious editor, but seems to be heading a little in the wrong direction in a few respects: too many images, and articles such as U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps which seem to be ORSYN. Given that it's a new editor, I would pay careful attention to WP:BITE and persist in trying to politely explain the problems on their talk page, but if you don't feel satisfied with the results I'd suggest a WP:RFC/U (or of the pr4cusror dispute resolution steps.

In the meantime, I suggest taking U.S. Space Exploration History on U.S. Stamps to AFD. Original research simply doesn't belong here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That was not really a slow reply (you have been much quicker on occasions), but thanks for the advise. ww2censor (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that an AFD is initially rather harsh; would a regular article RFC not be a better first step after trying to talk to the editor? TIA ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tiverton, Devon

Category:Tiverton, Devon, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please ignore the above - I tagged the wrong category, and have withdrawn the nomination! DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Southern Vectis route 7

You added a couple of cleanup templates to this article. I am a little confused. Could you please see the discussion on the article talk page (Talk:Southern Vectis route 7). --Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 00:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Leigh Rayment

Have you noticed that the Leigh Rayment pages have been down for a while now? This is quite a problem as there must be hundreds of links to them across Wikipedia which will all now be coming up as broken and ruining their value as reliable references. Do you know if any editor is aware of this, or how it can be brought to more general attention? Hopefully someone somewhere is working on fixing them but have you got any ideas about what's best to do in the meantime? G --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graham, not sure what's happening, because Rayment's pages look fine to me. I just loaded http://www.leighrayment.com, http://www.leighrayment.com/commons.htm and http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Fcommons.htm, all without problem. Still no problem when I bypassed the cache.

Have you tried clearing the cache on your browser? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, tried clearing the cache but I still get the same error message. It must be a problem with me and my browser if you can get the site OK. --Graham Lippiatt (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still working OK for me. Not sure what to suggest, but it does sound like it must be something to do with your computer an/or its internet connection. Have you considered trying a difft browser, such as Firefox or Opera? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried it, def down at this moment in time. WatcherZero (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Pop-ups & Dab bypassing

    I made a long response to a short comment-markup re Dab spacing that you inserted back when, and would welcome your thots, there or here. If you know of a wider discussion of the various issues we raised i'd be at least curious. Thanks. --Jerzy•t 19:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See my reply at Talk:Harry_Smith#Spacing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! RoryHC (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I imagine you were tired and/or rushing when you created this, this, and this redirect. I won't scold, but just wanted to point out the issue so you can be aware of it in future. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Russ. I was doing a lot of those redirects, and should have paid more attention. Thanks for fixing them! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy rename requested for Category:Australian of the Year Awards

I have responded to your objection here. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg. I have replied there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw your deletion, thanks for the help. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No prob, you're welcome. Sorry we got wires crossed along the way! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23#Category:Non-Western classical music genres

I feel that you have closed this discussion prematurely. There does appear to be consensus for a move. The only thing is there is lack of consensus over whether 'art' or 'classical' or some compromise between the two should be in the title. And this is still being discussed at Talk:List of art music traditions. I think that closure should've waited until the result of that move discussion and further discussion at the cfd afterwards. Could this closure be reversed? Or would it be better to open a second discussion once the list talk ends? Munci (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg, Munci.

First thing is that CFDs normally run for 7 days, but this one had been open for 34 days, nearly five times as long as usual. There needs to be some very pressing reason to keep it open at stage, and the guidelines suggest a maximum of 3 weeks.

I did consider stretching the guidelines by relisting it, but discussion at the CFD had more or less fizzled out and it was clear that not all participants in the CFD were happy to simply follow the result of the discussion at Talk:List of art music traditions. Given that, it seems to me to be better to have some wider discussions at the wikiprojects or in an RFC, so that a durable consensus can be formed.

If such a consensus is formed, then there is of course no problem in opening a new CFD discussion. Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that there was a backlog on cfds and that this had been there a while but I hadn't realised there was a guideline for maximum weeks. Do you have any suggestion of where exactly it would be best to go first for any possible further comments? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music? Rfc should come after that, right? Munci (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the music wikiprojects, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music sounds like a good starting point. However, since this cuts across various projects, it might be best to do an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Is it our new policy to delete stubs now?--Sodabottle (talk) 08:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not if they have some prospect of expansion. One-line sub-stubs with no prospect of expansion are a different matter: they are factoids which belong in lists, not as standalone articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

How did you decide there is no prospect of expansion?. Cursory gbook searches reveal there are enough sources. For example John Fowke has an Oxford DNB entry. Are we now restricting creation of new articles by length?--Sodabottle (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:STUB, and what a well-formed stub looks like. These are not stubs, they are factoids, and I womder whether they were created as vanity exercises to allow Boleyn to add entries to hir list of articles I created.

Creating a one-liner with no sources, no context, no categories, is not writing articles: it's just wasting reader's time.

If we don't have something approaching WP:STUB as a minimum, why don't we just get a bot to create one-line entries for every single redlink on wikipedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar discussion with the same editor here. I'm glad to see an admin taking up the issue of this editor's disruptive contributions. I come across a lot of them while stub-sorting. Thanks. PamD (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pam. That's useful to know, and now that I think about it I am unsurprised that you found a lot of probs trying to sort those stubs.

Unfortunately, communication with Boleyn (talk · contribs) is hard to achieve, and unproductive when it happens; I dunno whether Boleyn is deliberately obstructive, or simply doesn't understand the problem, but it's very hard to persuade hir that there is any problem to fix.

So I fear that this is all going to escalate, and if it does I'll let you know. If an RFC is needed, would you be in a position to certify having tried to resolve the problems? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC):

My attempts at resolving the problems are on the record - others are here, here and here - which s/he did resolve. It seems that s/he is determined to "improve" dab pages, at the expense of anything else.

Boleyn

The blocks together with your mass-noms of this editor's articles look to me like nothing more than bullying. Please unblock and withdraw your disruptive nominations of clearly notable subjects. Try spending your time improving the encyclopaedia rather than damaging it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If "improving" the encyclopedia involves:

1. creating dozens of useless, unreferenced sub-stub articles which contain less information on the topic than in the lists they link to, just so that they can be added to a list of "articles I created"
2. Editing the same set of articles under 3 different user IDs, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Fanshawe&action=history
3. Not responding at all to concerns of editors, but just keeping on editing in the same vein
4. Re-creating a speedily-deleted article with a new version in which the two major stated facts contradict the references supplied

Then I'm a banana.

I would much prefer to spend my time doing what I usually do, which is to write and expand articles, but when I encountered this flood of rubbish I realised that something had to be done to stop it. It would be great if you could help, by encouraging Boleyn (talk · contribs) to stop creating pointless crap like this. It was my discovery of that useless sub-stub which prompted me to investigate further, which was when I discovered the scale of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm encouraging you to refrain from "pointless crap" like your mass-noms and improper blocks. As to the British/Irish disagreement, I know that some Irish people object to it, but the parliament at the time was commonly referred to as the "British Parliament", and its members as "British MPs". Get over it - it looks like you are grasping at straws to justify your hounding of Boleyn. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The parliament may have been so refered to in Britain, but that does make mean that its MPs were all British. I know that some British editors have great difficulty understanding the difference between Britain and the United Kingdom, but I'm sure you're clever enough to grasp the distinction.

One question, DuncanHill. Do you agree that this creation of Boleyn's is pointless crap? (I can supply dozens more diffs just like it). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. Needs expansion and improvement, but neither pointless nor crap. As to British/Irish - I'm also clever enough to understand that language doesn't always behave the way that particular nationalists may want it to. It's not a big deal, and certainly not worth you making improper blocks, mass-noms, or threats of mass speedies over. I think the best thing for you to do would be to return to your wikibreak until you regain a sense of proportion and fair play. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, if you want to dig yourself into a hole, so be it. If you're just joking, please do so somewhere else ... but if you really think that this creation of Boleyn's is "neither pointless nor crap", then we won't agree on anything, so please don't waste your time posting on my talk page again. If you really think that a uneferenced standalone "article" which consists solely of a line offering less info than in the list it was copied from serves a useful purpose, then you clearly have a delightfully novel idea of what an encyclopedia is for, but it's one I have no interest in sharing.

What a pity, though, that a clever editor like you seems to prefer attacking the person cleaning up the mess than either doing anything to fix it or trying to stem its creation. But I'm going to get back to what has been my usual editing for over 4 years, which is creating articles on UK MPs --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That you choose to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you shews that you are unfit to be an admin. You have displayed shockingly poor judgement in this matter. DuncanHill (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm here to create an encyclopedia, and this guff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Since you support preserving pointless crap and oppose reproaching or restraining the prolific creator thereof, then I'm genuinely delighted that you understand that I take a wholly opposite view. If you want to support the creation of that sort of content, then I'd be hrrified if you approved of my judgement.

Now, as asked before: please stay off my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from making personal attacks in edit summaries as you did here. You can regard this a a Level 1 non-templated warning. I will add that no editor has the right to refuse to allow the placing of warnings on their talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on content is not a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"an experienced but lazy editor who didn't even look for any sources" is a comment on the contributor, not the content, I'm sure you are clever enough to understand that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an entirely factual description of what happened. But as usual, you show no concern at all for the repeatedly abysmal nature of the content created by that editor, and you're happy to devote your energies instead to sniping at the editor who fixes the mess. Very sad. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DuncanHill: Lazy is a comment but not an attack. Taken out of context it's nowhere near the complaint department. As benign as a facepalm (although some folks take facepalm for a physical assault, duh...) East of Borschov 12:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl. Thank you. Jeni ^(talk) 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, friend! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

- Kittybrewster ☎ 00:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your clarity of thought, telling it as it is, understanding of the best interests of wikipedia, patience and civility Kittybrewster ☎ 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

West Midlands (county)

Hi there BrownHairedGirl, after I closed the West Midlands (county) CFD, you recently altered the template on Category:Monasteries in the West Midlands (county). In doing so, it changed Category:Religion in the West Midlands to a red-linked Category:Religion in the West Midlands (county). Would this require: a) Category:Religion in the West Midlands to be renamed; b) have the template documentation updated; c) disuse the template for this category and manually add the categories? — ξ^xplicit 02:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the glitch. Looks like I missed a batch of religion-related categories in that big CFD nomination, so I have just listed them for speedying, in this edit. That will solve the problem with Category:Monasteries in the West Midlands (county). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

MP bios

After I spotted that George Leeman MP's bio was a redlink after I linked to it from Railway town, I thought I'd have a go at writing one of these biographies of long-dead politicians: see George Leeman. I'm just bragging really as I dug up far more on him than I expected to, but I thought you might like to see a relatively complete article to contrast with the sub-stubs you've been railing against. Fences&Windows 01:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow!!!! That does cheer me up. It's a great piece of work, and of the better articles on 19th-century backbench MPs.

I see a few tweaks possible, which I'll do out of pedantry, but if other new articles in this are where a fraction as good we'd have a wonderful set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I finished tweaking. Only pedantic polishing of great work, apart perhaps from one little trap, noted in this this edit. The index to http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/ is in their words "still undergoing development and experimentation", and the index shouldn't be relied upon. the index is 95% there, but with so many MPs it still contains quite a few glitches, and while it was accurate in this case it ain't always so, and it's not really a WP:RS. The site is a great resource for the text of Hansard, so I have made it an external link as per other articles on MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidy up and the tip about that Hansard site. That family got hit by misfortune in 1882/3: in 1882 George died, then in 1883 his sons Joseph Johnson and Francis Lawley died and his son William Luther declared bankruptcy.[5] Ouch.

I sympathised with your issues with Boleyn's sub-stubs as an article that is inaccurate, unsourced, and uncategorised is basically useless, although I don't have an issue with her editing from several accounts as though kooky it is so transparent. My approach has always been quality over quantity. I can see why some editors create stubs on places and species using bots, but overall I think that creating stubs like is of no real benefit to the reader or Wikipedia, and just leaves the hard work down to others. The 'seeding' approach may have been useful back in the Wild West days of Wikipedia when something was better than nothing, but seasoned editors these days should know better. Fences&Windows 11:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I spotted this, was puzzled by redlink to Yorkshire Herald, dug around a bit and found relevant info in an article to link it to, suggested on Yorkshire project page that someone needs to do something about the Newspapers of Yorkshire article, realised there wasn't an article for Westmorland Gazette where I'm temporarily resident, .... and thus goes another morning! PamD (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of ecchi anime

I have nominated List of ecchi anime, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ecchi anime. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I have posted at AFD to say that I created this article merely to move the list into the correct namespace, and since I know nothing about the topic I have no opinion on whether it should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a second?

HI BHG, hope you're having a good summer. I just wanted you to take a quick look at this forum-style comment left on Talk:Games Workshop today. A couple of years ago (seriously years) I made some edits to the Games_Workshop article to remove material that fails WP:NPOV and WP:V. There was a rant-type criticism section. An editor using London based IPs has been complaining about me and our policies on that ever since. I have always suspected that this IP editor is a sock of the banned sock-puppeteer User:RichSatan (the below ANi thread spells everything out)
For the record, I have not edited that article since June 2008 and yet the post I've linked to accuses me of (what is quite serious) misconduct. I'd like someone to look into this. This is the relevant old ANi thread about here if it helps. As the sock has a personal issue with me I believe it better for a neutral party to examine the case. Sorry for dumping this on you--Cailil ^talk 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Caili, thanks for your message, and sorry for the trouble you're having.

I have to say that unravelling IPs is not one of my strengths, so I'm not really in a position to make any assessment of my own about the presence or otherwise of sockpuppetry. However, I have great regard for Sir Fozzie's impartiality and thoroughness, so I'm quite happy to accept his assessment that there was socking in the past.

Given the history, another IP comment in the same vein raises questions of renewed socking, and I note that the IP responsible for the latest post (82.152.164.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is from the Eclipse Dynamic ADSL Pool, just like the others ... so there's a fair chance that it's the same editor.

The substance of the post seems to be that a) you are a total control-freak determined to prevent all criticism of GW, however well-sourced; and b) that there is little well-sourced criticism because GW stamps it out. Those two points rather contradict each other, so AFAICS the main issue is the personal attack.

I'm not sure what to do about that attack. Since the substantive allegation has already been investigated and dismissed, it's really just a question of whether to delete the post or reply to it pointing out the previous discussion, and whether to warn or block the IP. I'm not really an expert on how best to proceed, so I suggest that a quick post at ANI would bring more experienced heads to bear.

The other possibility, though, is to just ignore it for now, on a don't-feed-the-troll sortof approach. I don't want to suggest that's what you should do, but it does seem to me to be a viable option.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Whoops

Apologies about this, I missed your edit in the middle when reverting the rollback of my previous edit. Sorry! Daniel (talk) 04:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Easy to miss, now fixed, tho your revert only restored some of my edits ... and your edit change of the p.o.b has not been restored. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MEPs

Thanks for your comments on the MEPs CFD that I started. Just to let you know, I've withdrawn that relatively complicated nomination and have started three other nominations that are a little more modest and are more in line with where the discussion was headed. If these proposals are accepted, we can follow them up with future ones to resolve the other issues. Because you commented in the original discussion, I thought you might like to participate there. The three discussions are here, here, and here. I think you could offer some degree of expertise or at least insight into the last of these nominations in particular. (I'm sure you would have run across these in any case, but I did want you to know since I withdrew the nomination that you offered comments in.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up and for such a nice message! I did wonder whether my opposition to your first nomination might have come across as a bit dismissive and off-putting, so I am glad that you persevered with this, despite the brickbats. The new nominations are great, and I have supported all 3 of them. Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your comments were fine. I knew my nomination wasn't perfect in that other options were possible, so it was good to get quick feedback on certain issues so I could go down the right track that would have some support. There's no sense complicating things with these—I think the main thing is that they need to be cleaned up, and I'm not too picky on how we go about it. If these go through, I will try again to tackle some of the other issues in the tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great. I looked at it al myself and made a mental note to self to tackle these "some day", but it's great that you've gone ahead and done it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Future elections in Australia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Future elections in Australia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. (Note: I am not the initiator of the DRV, I'm simply doing the notification part.) — ξ^xplicit 18:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Have posted my thoughts at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 8. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Council elections in Bristol

Category:Council elections in Bristol, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That was nice of me to notify me :-/ --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your input could be helpful...

(...and would certainly be appreciated) in this CFD discussion. Perhaps you will have another idea of your own to suggest. At any rate, I know that you aren't hamstrung by a priori objectives on subjects of this sort, so I hope you'll join the discussion. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

UK General Elections

When you "remove(d) superfluous markup" in this and dozens of other articles, you did not actually remove a wikilink. The infobox code converts an unlinked year such as 1974 into a link to United Kingdom general election, 1974 -- but that is a disambiguation page, because there were two general elections in that year. Therefore, instead of removing "superfluous" markup, you actually have changed a correct link into an incorrect one. You may wish to undo these edits. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't want to revert those edits, because what you describe has not happened. Have you checked what happens when those links are converted into a year? Just follow the links.

The problem you describe was fixed over a month ago in this edit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right; I jumped to a conclusion too hastily. Sorry to bother you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's OK, and sorry that my initial response here may have appeared a bit snappy or frosty.

My edit summaries probably should have explained more about why I was removing the markup, because it wasn't immediately obvious. Thanks for pointing it out to me, and sorry again for not being more welcoming in my response. In situations like this, it's much better to raise a perceived problem (even if the concern turns out to be misplaced) than to risk leaving a problem unresolved.

Thanks for contacting me about it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I didn't explain very well either. I was (and still am) trying to figure out why that disambiguation page has gathered a lot of incoming links over the past few days. At this point, my tentative thought is that your change to the infobox code, which is within an #ifexists: construct, creates a phantom link to the disambiguation page during the process of rendering the template, even though the link never appears in the pages as rendered. I am thinking about whether there is another way to structure the template to achieve the same result without creating this phantom link. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. I hadn't checked the links to the dab page, but whatlinks here shows dozens of them.

I took a look at Chipping Barnet and did a few small edits to purge the cache, but it's still showing up in whatlinkshere as a link to United Kingdom general election, 1974. However, neither the displayed article nor the source of the rendered page show any such link; it links correctly to United Kingdom general election, 1974.

I think that it may be caused, as you suggest, by the #ifexists test in Template:Infobox UK constituency main/year. It is an unfortunate glitch that #ifexists produces that effect, but I think I can avoid it by splitting that template and adding "February" before doing the #ifexists test. Can you give me a few minutes to implement this? (I don't want an edit conflict in the template!) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! You can find my (untested) hack of the template code in User:R'n'B/Sandbox if you want. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

My solution was to have Template:Infobox UK constituency main/year change 1974 to February 1974, and pass that to a sub-template which will do the formatting. I tested this at User:BrownHairedGirl/yeartest, but as you can see from the results at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/yeartest, I overlooked the problem that this leads to the display of "February 1974" as the link text, rather than just "1974".

OTOH, your hack works perfectly. Would you like to do the honours and implement it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for spotting the problem and for devising the fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

More re Pop-ups & Dab bypassing

    I've mulled over (in what may, i realize, be an annoyingly long interval) your response to my "Pop-ups & Dab bypassing" comments re your summary of yr edit of the Harry-Smith Dab. In part, i concluded that it's best that i respond here on some aspects that would best be solely between us two, and back on the Dab's talk page re most of the matter itself.
    I think that it would be easy to say more than is productive about what's already passed between us, and that it suffices for me to give you my opinion that

1. what astonishes you,
2. your unfounded conclusion that "... [i] noticed [the current rendering] after starting this...", and
3. mention that "... [i] have ... apparently done nothing to" bypass the lks to the HS Dab pg

a) are irrelevant to the discussion, and

b) have at best the effect of undercutting NPA, due to the impracticality of definitively distinguishing them from the intentionally uttered species.

(Point b is IMO especially problematic in the case of item 3 above, namely your giving the appearance of complaining about a colleague's decisions about what edits not to undertake.) I am striking them thru for those reasons, and ask you to consider letting that strikethru stand.
    As something of a separate matter, it seemed to me you also insinuated that your hypothesis -- about what kind of impediment to editing Dab pages most harms the usability of WP -- amounts to a logical argument. I regard its substance as a valid opinion, and i wonder if you might want to take the opportunity to at least restate it more clearly in that direction. I think that would better serve the discussion than my addressing it as it stands: i would start by identifying the danger of mistaking for sound reasoning something that shows no sign of being more than an self-interested opinion about something that is likely not to be quantifiable, nor (even if it were) a usable model.
--Jerzy•t 05:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jerzy, please

1. per WP:RPG, don't edit my comments, as you did here. I have reverted that, and may have lost something you added. Put back anything you added if you want to, but without editing mine
2. Keep discussions in one place. There's no point in discussing this here and at talk:Harry Smith

Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

1. My goal was efficiency, and not to encroach on any boundary that i expected you'd feel strongly about; you've made your expectation clear, and i will accommodate to it.
   I'd be interested in reviewing -- i've not done so in years -- any guideline or policy you have in mind. (Tho i can't imagine you meant Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games!)
   My reading is that you see your grievance as satisfied by your reversion, and that you haven't asked for an apology, so please speak up if that's just my tin ear.
2. If i follow you, you perceive a single discussion and might even prefer this edit of mine, and perhaps yours to which it replies, to be on the Dab-talk page. I'm afraid, if that's the case, that the only way i can satisfy you is if this separate discussion, of our disagreements about each other's behavior, now arrives at its end. Such matters are off-topic -- and distracting and inflammatory -- on main-namespace-talk pages, which should be restricted to discussing the content of the corresponding main-namespace page. (And conversely, i think you do agree with me that none of the content issues should come here.)

--Jerzy•t 07:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerzy, with all dues respect, you are making it very hard to follow what point you are trying to make. You would save yourself a lot of work if you wrote many fewer words and just stuck to the narrow point of what changes you do want to make to the dab page, or don't want to make, and why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy

Hi, you previously commented at this move debate, saying it should wait until the discussion on the overall naming convention had concluded. Now that discussion has concluded (or at least come to a halt; I'm not sure any agreement was reached), and the move has been relisted, would you like to comment again?--Kotniski (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I have commented at Talk:Tommy McAvoy, Baron McAvoy#Requested_move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

CfD help

Please see here I honestly have no idea what's going on with this category, and I've seen you at CfD before, so I figured you might be able to shed some light. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have commented at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

CfD dialogue

Please be aware that I'm responding to your comment on CfD with great uneasiness, since your "until somebody got a bee-in-the-bonnet" comment suggests you cannot respond to my actions without insulting me. Maybe that's my problem, and maybe not. But regardless, I would prefer if you didn't push my buttons by characterizing my behavior in negative terms. Thank you in advance.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I was a bit fed up when I replied, and I guess that showed. You are determined to avoid the word "future", which i disagree with; but while I respect your desire for an alternative, I find that your continued insistence on "something else" is getting rather silly when every alternative suggested has serious flaws. This has been discussed at great length now without anything remotely approaching agreement on any alternative, and this quest for "something else" is just impeding the removal of a category name which is demonstrably inaccurate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree to disagree on word choice without using words like "silly" and "impeding." We might not reach agreement on your alternative. Then again, we might. But the "something else" might well be found. So please restrict your comments about me to ones that are not condescending. Whether you think I should be offended by your tone is irrelevant to me. Just know that I am. Thank you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mike, it's entirely up to you whether you choose to be offended. If you choose to take offence, that's your business.

Anyway, I stand by my observation that this is getting silly ... and if you think I;m being harsh, look at what was written at DRV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My reading of WP:CIVIL is that regardless of whether other people are inflammatory and use demeaning terms, I don't have a right to do that. Your track record at the admin notice board makes it unclear whether you feel the same way. But I have no wish to fight with you. I've told you in clear terms that I don't want you to use belittling words toward me. It's up to you whether you heed that warning.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, Mike, it's entirely up to you whether you wish to complicate the resolution of a mistaken rename. This is the sort of thing that has given the CFD process a bad name in some quarters: a decision made in good faith turns out to be mistaken, and instead of simply saying "ok, with the benefit of hindsight it's clear that one didn't work", you're trying to shoehorn events into a label which cannot reasonably be used.

Just give the dead horse a rest, and we can all move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have the ability to simply ignore my comments about the categories and move on by yourself, or you can continue to pick a fight with me. I may change my opinion, and I may not. And even if I don't, a closer may decide to go a different direction. That's fine with me. That does not change this fact: You will be civil to me from now on, or I will not take it lightly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You will stop being silly, or this whole mess will end up back at DRV again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If that happens, the world will not end. I'm done here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the world will not end, but lots of ppl will waste more time. Anyway, if you're done here, we can all move on and get back to more useful tasks. Take care. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

MEP thx

Thanks for the extended explanation here; I agree that they should remain as is so have withdrawn that nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that was a good idea to withdraw it, and thanks for doing so.

I'm still feeling a little guilty that I have left you to do the spadework on the MEP categories. You've done a great job, but here have been a few instances (like this one) where I was more familiar with the topic and could have saved you lots of work if I'd done a little bit myself. Thanks again for being so nice about it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, not a big deal. I'm "learnding" as I go. After these, the only real challenging issues are (1) do we subdivide the French constituency ones by parliamentary term or just lump them all together, and (2) how to phrase the categories for MEPs who are members of particular "groups" in the Parliament, and (3) do we categorize non-attached MEPs in separate categories. We'll tackle these in the coming weeks, hopefully. If you want to think about them and give me any advance hints about your thoughts on any of the three issues, feel free. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, every once in awhile I get an urge to nominate the immigrants categories to emigrants. Then I remember how many there are ... grrr. Someday, someday—when I'm locked in a room for a day with nothing but access to WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

several questions on wikipedians who use multiple IDs, and and on managing large watchlists

When looking for something else, I came across a relatively recent discussion on WP:ANI, of your block of User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. You said you would probably initiate a RFC. I found your concern over the use of multiple accounts paralleled concerns I had about a year ago.

One of her accounts informed me she had nominated some dab pages I had started for deletion. Unfortunately (1) her heads-up did not say which dab pages she had nominated for deletion; (2) I look at the contribution history, to see which dab pages showed it had been nominated around the time she left those notices -- and there weren't any. How did this happen? She made the nominations from one of her wiki-ids, while leaving the inadequate heads-ups from another of her wiki-ids.

I did, eventually, figure out which dabs she had nominated. But first I had to figure out she was using multiple accounts, and it wasted quite a bit of my time. IIRC I voiced my concern on User talk:Boleyn, and experienced the same kind of unresponsiveness you described. So I initiated a thread on WP:ANI. My thread didn't attract as much attention as yours. IIRC Boleyn said she felt bullied. I was told that her use of multiple accounts was completely consistent with our policies. Frankly I wasn't convinced. And I thought that, even if multiple accounts were consistent with our policies, it would really be helpful if she used them in a more open and transparent manner -- so that for any particular article, all the edits related to it were made with a single one of her wiki-ids.

I know Boleyn asserted that she needs multiple wiki-ids because otherwise her watchlist would have grown longer than 10,000 items. When my watchlist grew longer than 10,000 items I found it was no longer helpful, as it could consume the entire times I had to devote to the wikipedia to check it. I idly considered whether it was possible to create a second wiki-id, so I could have two watchlists. I suspected it was not policy compliant. And once I reviewed the policies I was sure it was not policy compliant.

Can I ask how you manage to check a watchlist of 30,000 items?

It seems to me this problem would go away if the wikimedia software supported multiple watchlists per wiki-id, or if it provided us with more precise queries of our watchlist results. I think it would be very useful to be able to look at a list of all the articles one has edited in the last 24, 48, or 168 housrs, that have subsequently been edited by someone else.

If your haven't initiated that RFC on multiple wiki-ids yet, can I ask for a heads-up if you do so?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I left Boleyn a heads-up about my note. I told her that I wasn't try to aqgravate a strained situation. And I apologized that I had held on to my frustration over a whole year, and let some it leak out into this note. I'd still be interested in a heads-up if that RFC happens.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ips again

Hi BHG, remember that problematic IP i mentioned a few days ago? Well the issue continued and escalated so I've made an ANI post[6]. Any input on the matter would be appreciated. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in this case and I will attempt to rectify the matter--Cailil ^talk 17:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable

The word means I cannot accept it. It does not mean that I want you to add more of the same, and also to run interference with my entirely appropriate suggestions. Butt out, if you want to invoke spades. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to butt in, but you are quite entitled to have your say. So am I.

You also chose to interfere with my entirely appropriate suggestions, which is fine: it's called discussion, and it works both ways.

Accept or not, as you choose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Come now, I'm only there because of this diff, which led me to improve John Borough and other articles; and entirely refutes your overstated position that those stubs are of no advantage to the encyclopedia. Like every single argument of yours I have seen on that page, it is a stretch - bad rhetoric designed to impress rather than likely to convince. What speaks for itself, really, is that I had to propose that User:Boleyn should mail me, to get exactly the sort of result you want, out of the way of your self-defeating crusading. I have no idea what history has led to this position; but I'm clearly not alone in thinking that you should not be involved in it at this point. Your combative line above only reinforces all that. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, you pompously told me that because you didn't like something I did, it was "unacceptable" and that I should "butt out". If you want to take that tone, don't be surprised that you get a reply in the same snotty tone which you used.

Anyway, If you want to see where this started, see User talk:Boleyn/Archive_9#Sub-stubs.

Since then Boleyn has in some cases improved the quality of the stubs she creates. Now she does usually add some categories (though not usually a DEFAULTSORT), and she does in some cases add a reference, though in most cases that's only to one of the minor points. So there has been some progress, though it's very slow, and much slower than her rate of creating new articles.

If you think that the arguments I have made are all a stretch, then re-read and look for all the basic factual errors I have pointed out to Boleyn over the last month, going back to User talk:Boleyn/Archive 9#James Christopher Flynn_again. It's the same pattern, repeated time and time again: gross factual errors in the few basic points asserted in a 2-sentence article.

Bizarrely, you said that you don't think WP:STUB deprecates unreferenced stubs ... even though I had already quoted to you the sentence which says "Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article". I have no idea how, even at a stretch, you can read that as anything other than deprecating unreferenced stubs: it makes no sense for them to be deleted if they are fine.

WP:CSD#A10 is also very clear, but you seem to think it's a stretch too. That's up to you, but your firmly-held beliefs do not override the guideline.

If you and others like creating articles based on DNB entries, that's fine ... so rather than encouraging the creation of sub-stubs which meet WP:CSD#A10, why not encourage Boleyn to add them to a list which you and others could use as a basis for creating new articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Two points. The tone of this discussion has been set by you. It is clear that someone should be standing up to you, and telling you in terms that your treatment of User:Boleyn is in effect harassment: you were on the slippery slope with your assumption of bad faith, as I made plain to you, and you descended quickly into a personal attack. Secondly, there is absolutely no point you deflecting the discussion into your subjective readings of what is in the guideline or anywhere else. The fact that you lack objectivity here - are using every shred of slant to beat up on User:Boleyn, rather than allow others to resolve the situation - is why you should obviously withdraw from your current posture. Anyone can see that the stubs on User:Boleyn are a mixed bag. The fact is that you offer nothing but yelling. You are way, way outside the parameters of a content dispute. I am not "encouraging" anything except a measured approach to a particularly nasty, personalised dispute between prolific contributors. The fact that you are now making snide remarks about my efforts is yet more evidence that you lack perspective. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, this isn't complicated. Wikipedia is not myspace or the blogosphere; it's an encyclopedia with quality standards, and Boleyn's creation of articles repeatedly falls way below those standards.

That in itself is not unusual, but what is unusual here has been the sheer quantity of those articles, the notable lack of progress in quality. Plenty editors start off writing weak content, but Boleyn's article creation was distinguished by her total lack of interest in improving the quality of her output; she has repeatedly defended one-liners-pasted-from-a-dab-page or totally incorrect articles by saying that anyone else is free to improve them. By the time I spotted the flood, she'd made about 600 sub-stubs according to her counter, and they were still abysmal.

There has been some progress since I started trying to tackle this, but the fact that even after four weeks of scrutiny, she was still creating wholly unreferenced new articles over the weekend shows how far there is to go.

My strategy so far has been:

a) initially to [[[User talk:Boleyn/Archive_9#Sub-stubs|set out the problems]], in the good-faith assumption that a editor keen to improve wikipedia would want to raise their game. That was rejected, and instead Boleyn created many more abysmal sub-stubs in rapid succession

b)The problems then went to ANI, initialy as a complaint against me which got nowhere. However, there was a lot of support for some sort of restraint by Boleyn, including from other editors who had invested a lot of time cleaning up the mess. However there was no consensus on any specific restrictions on Boleyn.

c)I stayed away from Boleyn for a while to see if she raised her game, and came back to find lots more sub-stubs which clearly meet WP:CSD#A10, and lots more slightly longer stubs with serious problems. So I set out to document those failings, not at this stage expecting any improvement, but hoping that there might be some, and knowing that a record of the ongoing problems would be necessary at any RFC on her work.

Now, if you or somebody else can persuade Boleyn to raise her game, then I wish you luck.

But when you start shooting the messenger and ignoring what existing content guidelines say (or dismissing their plain-English meaning as a "slant"), then that looks to me like, as you said, "yet more evidence that you lack perspective". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

BHG, I think at this point it's best to drop the stick for a bit. It looks like Boleyn is still having trouble making the jump to article creation as an act of higher-order thinking (in the sense of Bloom's Taxonomy, i.e., synthesis and evaluation of references rather than using them as shrubberies). Whether or not this is willful, I don't pretend to say, but I don't think continuing to point out the mistakes in the articles she's created, over and over, is going to create any more progress at this point. Ultimately, you're going to make yourself vulnerable to other editors showing up, who, in the Wikipedia tradition, don't pretend to issue judgment on the content but will do so on the form of interaction and judge you to be in the wrong.

On the subject of the stubs. When, for instance, Blofeld says "stubs , even if they have minimal content are more valuable thay some people are letting on, specially in encouraging others to edit wikipedia", he's referring to the genial emotional blackmail of these sorts of people which drives a lot of Wikipedia content improvement. In moderate doses, this is all very well; it's sort of fun being "blackmailed". The problem, as you observed, is with volume, which drives the "blackmail" to the point where it's difficult to pay. You've tried to stop the "blackmailer," without success; I'd suggest the next logical course of action, in the spirit of the age under discussion, is "Publish and be damned." If people are taking the position that our content standards should be set around "salad fight," because, of course, someone *wink, wink* could always come along and fix up those stubs...don't take the bait. They can fix them, not you.

Furthermore, it seems that this is more or less what Charles has agreed to do, which seems like an excellent approach, and he certainly has the content knowledge to do it. If he can develop Boleyn's article-writing to the point of producing useful, informative stubs that aren't prosified "What links here," the problem is solved and we can all rejoice. If three months from now, he's sifting through twenty articles a night that call Irish baronets English peers and politicans and invoke the authority of the DNB in so doing...well, he may be slightly less sanguine about the value of creating great masses of stubs on autopilot. Either way, he's acting to make it his problem, and he has the knowledge to spot the errors we've pointed out, so why not take a break from it for a while and let him grapple with it? Choess (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Choess, thanks for that long and thoughtful comment. It's been a bit of a rarity in these discussions to hear from someone who is actually expresses an interest in the quality of content, so I value your thoughts.

I was working my way to a similar conclusion when you posted, and was gonna post in the morning saying "you're right" when I saw that an ANI thread had been posted, so I responded there.

So, yes, at this point I won't post more to Boleyn about this, because she clearly doesn't want to know and sadly is supported by a few editors whose idea of minimum standards for content bears no relation to the guidelines. I'll be away from middle of next week until early september, and we'll see where it's all got to by then. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Honourable in MP's title?????

Hi BHG. I note User talk:94.8.120.11 is currently busy converting a lot of MPs into honourables. Whilst this is how they are addressed in the HOC, is there any MOS policy on this? Regards JRPG (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's simply wrong. :(

If you were an MP and I addressed you in the chamber, I would refer to you as "the Honourable Member", or if it's not clear who I am referring to, I'd say "the Honourable Member for Sometown Central" ... but both in the chamber and outside it, there is no convention at all of saying "the Honourable JPRG".

I think that the IP is confusing the UK with the United States, where AFAIK a Congressperson is referred to as "the honourable Jane Smith", or with member of the UK's Privy Council, who are referred to as "The Right Honourable" (see Privy Council of the United Kingdom#Rights_and_privileges_of_members. AFAICS, the people who 94.8.120.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is calling "honourable" are not privy councillors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Given that it's a standard form of address in the Commons, I was extremely reluctant to change it without checking. JRPG (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I report; please back away from User:Boleyn

I think if you took 24 hours and looked at your rage against User:Boleyn you might see it for what it is. Maybe you could ask an off-line friend to look at it and give you their honest opinion. I suspect an honest evaluation by you or someones who cares about you would bring a serious pause to your current actions.

Please back away from User:Boleyn. You are not objective. You are clearly angry. You clearly have some personal gripe going on against this user--yes, it's clear it's personal for you. This is seen from your relentless badgering and going after this one single editor in the same non-useful manner, as opposed to your or seeking community advise or resolutions to the problem you perceive, and by your refusal to acknowledge that anyone can see a problem in your behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator_BrownHairedGirl.27s_badgering_of_User:Boleyn

--IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's personal for BHG: I think the despair about Boleyn's editing is probably shared by other editors who regularly sort stubs or otherwise interact with Boleyn's work. For example yesterday, I came across this. In the course of one short stub this very experienced editor manages to (a) link Plowden to a dab page; (b) create a red-link for Baron Plowden (a later editor created a redirect which links back to this page, the only sensible place for this link to point - so there was no point making it a link in the first place); (c) create duplicate references to one source. She added this person to the Plowden dab page, with no dates or description. All this would be fine from a new editor, but this massively experienced editor should not be leaving so many loose ends for other people to tidy up. (Yes, I got hooked and spent too much time yesterday creating not only Plowden, Shropshire but also Bridget Plowden). She obviously does a huge amount of work on Wikipedia, but I and BHG, and probably other editors too, wish she would improve the quality of her work even if at the expense of some of the quantity. PamD (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that she added Category:Barons in the Peerage of England which I think is only for early titles - I'm not an expert in this area, but I think more recent titles are at Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and a note there says to use Category:Life peers instead for such people. PamD (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. BHG doesnt do personal. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification of the ANI thread, and for the comments from PamD and Kittybrewster. At this point, I think ANI may be a helpful place to clarify some the issues, and to move beyond the noise generated by a few editors who have given the appearance of being entirely unconcerned about content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

John de Courcy Ireland

hi

On a visit to Dalkey - and found this plaque in honour of John deCourcey http://twitgoo.com/19l9x1

The plaque was at the tiny harbour in Dalkey - here - http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.274023,-6.090696&spn=0.003612,0.009645&t=h&z=17

(hope I have used this properly!)

thanks

Neil Scott Glasgow86.10.103.208 (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil!

John de Courcy Ireland was a lovely man, much respected by people in may walk of life, regardless of how much they agreed or disagreed with his politics. It's a pity that we only have such a grainy picture of him, and your picture of the plaque in Dalkey harbour would be a great addition to the article on him. The only problem is that we can't link to twitgoo or steal the picture from there. Please could you upload it to wikipedia? Thanks! --13:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

How do I upload to wikipedia (bit of a noob I am afraid!) or could I email it to you? my email it plottracer@googlemail.com86.10.103.208 (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

AHA! managed to upload it - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Decourcy.jpg Plot Tracer (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That one's not valid on Wikipedia without the explicit consent of the creator of the plaque. Freedom of panorama in Ireland—that is, the right to publish photographs of things on public display—only applies in very limited circumstances ("buildings, sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public"), with "work of artistic craftsmanship" quite narrowly defined in terms of "intent to create an art piece" (murals, original jewellery, elaborate carvings etc). – iridescent 14:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn. Thanks for the correction, iridiscent ... and Plot Tracer, I'm very sorry to have misled you into uploading a photo which it seems we cannot use after all. :(

However, we can mention the existence of the plaque in Dalkey harbour. Since plot tracer was the person astute enough to spot that it should be covered in wikipedia, would you like to do the honours of adding a mention to the article John de Courcy Ireland? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Baron stubs

I've recently been looking into the stub categories for barons, and learned stuff I never knew before: I think I now understand that an English baron may be in the Peerage of England, Peerage of Great Britain or Peerage of the United Kingdom, split by 1707 and 1800. I wonder if it would be helpful to draw attention to those dates in the stub categories? I've added some text to Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom baron stubs and Category:Peerage of England baron stubs. What do you think? Without such advice it's easy for someone like me who isn't and expert on peerages to see "Peerage of England baron stubs" and assume it's the right stub for an English baron!

If you reckon those additions are accurate, helpful, and in the right place/format, I could add similar ones to various other stub categories. PamD (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pam, you're definitely right to raise the issue, because it's a tangled subject, with no less than five difft sets of peerages in these islands (Ireland, Scotland, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom), and I think it's a great idea to clarify things for readers and editors.

However, the details are rather hard to convey both concisely and accurately, so I think it's important to take care that the much-needed clarification doesn't inadvertently mislead the reader.

For example, many titles created in the Peerage of England are still extant, and likewise of Ireland, Scotland and GB. Your note at Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom baron stubs seems entirely accurate to me, but I'm less sure about Category:Peerage of England baron stubs.

The uncertainty wrt Category:Peerage of England baron stubs is because I don't know whether new titles were created in the Peerage of England after 1707. I do know that some new titles were created in the Peerage of Ireland after 1801, but i dunno if the same thing applies to Scotland, England or GB.

Peerages and baronetcies and so on aren't really one of my areas of interest, and I just try to know enough not to miscategorise or mislabel MPs; the wider subtleties are beyond me. What I know on the subject has almost all been learnt through the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, several of whom have an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject.

So what I'll do now is to repost this thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, and seek their advice. I do hope that we can find some way of clarifying things as you suggest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage#Baron stubs. Probably best that further substantive discussion takes place there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd got the idea that Barons were among your specialities! I'll be interested to see what they say. While I'm there, there's another question to ask... PamD (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, there's just a lot of overlap with MPs! Up to the early 20th century, a lot of seats in the Commons were held by men who later inherited peerages, and of course many MPs were given peerages in their own right, so I can't avoid the topic (and that's how I started learning a bit about baronetcies too, which lead to me being the firing line for a now-departed editor with an axe to grind on that subject). I too will be interested to see what the experts say! :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Bangs head against keyboard

Have a good break. I've done it a couple of times, and magically when I come back the editors that are causing me pain and suffering have either vanished or someone else has ensured they're not causing someone else the same issues. I don't know why it happens, but it does. Funny, that ... Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and that's a very true observation! Some time away and all the sand-dunes are re-arranged in a difft map.

In this case, I'm pleased to see that the sands are already shifting: several editors have been offering Boleyn practical guidance on how to do things like format references, as well as offering some encouragement to her. And so far she doesn't seem to have told them to stop bugging her, or to fix it themselves if they see a problem. Definite progress.

Maybe I'll come back to see the best possible outcome, viz, Boleyn hard at work creating decent stubs! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Year in Wales header

Thanks for creating this. Smart iawn! (Even though I would normally object on wikideological grounds to the replacement of something freely editable by something that is not -- and have one small gripe arising from this: is it possible for you to amend the template in such a way that there is consistency between (e.g.) 1948 in the United Kingdom and 1948 in: Ireland, preferably with a colon in neither?) -- Picapica (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no prob creating it. Having done the same thing for Ireland a few years ago, I thought it was a good idea to do it here both to simplify markup in the articles, and to make the categorisation consistent. (I went add something to the 1943 in Wales article, found it didn't exist, set about creating it, saw that the infobox was hand-coded and a little crude, so I gave my myself the extra job of making one and deploying it. Usual wiki-spiralling-work-syndrome: a 1-minute edit prompted a 5-hour job!)

Sorry about the glitch with the colon. That's a residue of an attempt to create similar links to yyyy in Scotland, yyyy in England articles where they existed, but AFAICS none of the English articles exist post-1706 in England, and there are very few of the Scottish articles. There are some Scottish year articles, and when they exist you can see the effect of the output at 2006 in Wales.

Since the other articles are so rare, I think that the best solution is that that it should retain the existing format either yyyy in Scotland or yyyy in England exist, but that if neither exists then it should produce the output as you suggest. If I can figure out the syntax to do that, would that solution be OK?

I protected the template because since it's used in ~250 articles, it seemed to me to be a bit susceptible to vandalism. I'm not fixated on the protection, but since it does use several chunks of sensitive parser syntax it seemed to me to be a good idea to protect it not just from vandalism but from well-intentioned editors who may inadvertently break the complex syntax, thereby possibly miscategorising 250+ articles. Do you think it should be unprotected? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course, it's the complex and "sensitive parser" syntax aspects that bother me -- the sort of thing that I think often puts today's Wikipedia a million miles away from what I always took to be the original intent of a freely editable database where the security came from the vigilant multitudinousness of participants knowledgeable in their fields, not from the computer-programming skilfulness of a small techie priesthood... In short, is it a good thing for 250+ articles to be dependent upon the inclusion (?transclusion) of material that is too delicate to risk being tampered with by the great unwashed? I know that there IS vandalism in Wikipedia but -- once again -- I think that NOT discouraging the active participation of the benevolent majority is a far better safeguard against that than erecting technical barriers which lead "ordinary" Wikipedians such as myself to think that there's no longer much point in trying to contribute if more and more editing rights are to be confined to the bureaucracy.

Don't get me wrong: I'm just explaining my feelings here, not seeking any kind of quarrel (of which there are already a depressingly large number in Wp!). As I said, the new header is a lot nicer looking than the version which I designed: it's just that the "crude" version was perhaps dirty but it worked, and -- if it didn't -- I or anyone else had an equal chance of trying to improve it without the need to erect barriers against the hoi polloi. To your question Do you think it should be unprotected? you will not be surprised, then, to learn that my answer is Yes!

Just one more thing on the practical effects of the new header, I notice that there is no longer an internal link to "Other years in Wales", as there was in the old. I found this a very useful link, if I may say so myself, and wonder if you could restore it? -- Picapica (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

I have created a sandbox version at Template:Year in Wales header/sandbox, which is of course unprotected, so anyone can edit it, and if there is consensus for changes, they can be rolledout by an admin. The testcases are at Template:Year in Wales header/testcases, where you can see how the sandbox version of the template compares with the current version -- again, freely editable.

That's the conventional way of doing things with high-use templates, because anyone can experiment with changes, but they don't get rolled out to hundreds of articles without checking. In this case, I have incorporated both the fixes you wanted: a) a link to the list of years in Wales, and b) tidying up the links to Ireland and UK etc. I have done b by merging the two lines, and as you can see, it shows links only to the articles which actually exist, thereby avoiding a potential forest of redlinks for the hundreds of years for which there are no yyyy in Scotland or yyyy in England articles, as well as handling the Gb/Uk issue.

I understand where you're coming from wrt the anyone-can-edit issue, and I think that my failure to promptly create a sandbox and testcases may have exacerbated the feeling that everything had moved behind a wall. I hope the sandbox eases that issues ... and as to the wider point of using tenplates, I think I view the balance a bit differently.

First, hundreds of thousands of articles rely on protected templates, such as {{infobox}} and its many variants, and I think that's a good thing for both readers and editors. For editors, it allows and easy way of creating metadata and navigational links in a standardised form: it's a toolkit, not a straitjacket, and it doesn't have to be used. For editors, it also allows the infobox to be enhanced or modified by changes to one centralised page, and even when an admin has to be called in to implement the changes, the discussion still amounts to an awful lot less work than editing hundreds or thousands of pages.

Using templates like this also has huge benefits to readers, by ensuring that info is summarised in a consistent way, which makes speed-reading and navigation much easier.

The use of conditional syntax also allows pages to self-update: e.g, if someone creates 1975 in Scotland, it will automatically be linked to from 1975 in Wales. No need for an editor to go to the trouble of updating page, or for the reader to either not encouter the link or to be confronted with redlinks in the meantime. That looks to me like a win-win.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what you think of the draft in the sandbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the detailed reply. I'm happy enough now with the current sandbox version in that it does better address my points about style (punctuation) and internal linking. Just one thing, though: I think that the meaning of "List" as an internal link is not clear enough to the casual user (and the use of guillemets a little too 'heavy' -- especially since they lead me, at least, to expect a quotation), so I have experimentally changed this to << all >> (I believe that this, appearing directly beneath Other years, is intuitively clearer). -- Picapica (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it now perhaps time to impose the "sandbox-corrected" template? If not, I'll give it four or five days -- then start reverting to the old, crude version. (I know that's likely to take time, but then I'd never have got started on Wikipedia in the first place if I wasn't prepared to commit to long, slow, low-tech slog! -- Picapica (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Picapica ... I had missed your reply. If you're happy with what's now in the sandbox, I'll do it pronto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now done. Glad we found a solution that worked, and sorry again for the delay.

I was a bit surprised to see that you were thinking of removing the box from 250 articles, thereby losing the extra links and categories from all those articles, just because of a delay in updating the template. If you need the sandbox copied over to the live version on this (or any other) protected template, just use {{editprotected}}, and an admin will be along pronto. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're still around...

...How about taking another look at that CFD for the Ancient astronaut cats. Yep, it's still open, and things have progressed through yet more alternate proposals. I yielded on the first one ("hypothesis") -- which you supported -- and I've now laid out a new proposal with what I think is a pretty conclusive case for "conjectures". So if you can spare a couple of minutes, see what you think. Cgingold (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work. I think "conjectures" is even better than your earlier suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cahirciveen

Hi. I recently requested that Cahirciveen be moved to Cahersiveen (see here). It's been almost a week, but only one user has replied. The arguments for moving it are solid, and the user agreed with them. What should I do now? ~Asarlaí 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I made my own comment there: your proposed move feels wrong, but evidence is all on your side.

Anyway, having commented, I can't close it, and as the proposer you shouldn't really close it either ... so just let it run and it'll be picked up by an admin going through the list at WP:RM. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Also, I think we got different google results because I used google.com. ~Asarlaí 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Karachi streets

Hi, do you think this should be renamed Category:Streets in Karachi? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiya, Dr B

Quick answer: yes, it should be renamed, to fit the convention of Category:Streets by country and is sub-categoroies. This can be done as a speedy rename, without needing a full discussion: see WP:CFD/S.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hokay I thought so, I was going to consider CFDing it that's all. If its OK to speedy rename. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it meets speedy criterion C2C. Good luck! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you nuke Category:Karachi streets then? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I could zap it, but I don't think that's a good idea. It's now a {{Category redirect}}, so that anyone looking for the old name will be sent to the right place, and I reckon that's better that leaving hem with a dead end. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason why is that I know a lot of Pakistani editors are a nightmare when it comes to organizing things, some of the Pakistan articles are amongst the worst on wikipedia. Give it three months and that category will probably be full again. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You got a good point there, Dr B. I did some work a few months back sorting out categories of universities and colleges (and their alumni) around the world, and a lot of the Pakistani articles were indeed in very poor shape :(

However, if the category was deleted, then it could still be re-created, unless it's salted ... and at this point I don't see any grounds for salting. In the meantime, if anyone tries adding Category:Karachi streets using HotCat, then HotCat will resolve the redirect ... and if someone manually adds Category:Karachi streets, then a bot will fix it in a few days. So it will only fill up if someone restores the substantive category, and I think that's rather less likely.

However, if I'm wrong, I suggest that the best thing to do will be to take it to a full CFD discussion with a request to salt it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Tis OK then, the redirect is fine. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I do a fair bit of CFD stuff, so if you need a second opinion again, pls feel free to ask! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Monckton

I just wanted to note my appreciation for your comments on the BLP noticeboard about the Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley article - they're some of the most insightful comments that anyone's posted in that discussion. I've posted a followup proposal at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley#Monckton and Parliament - I'd appreciate any thoughts that you might have. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I'm glad that helped. I have a small clarification in relation to your otherwise excellent proposal at Monckton and Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Category:Converts to atheism

Hi BHG - I just realized that you never weighed in on the alternate renaming proposal after I relisted the CFD. The original proposal was for that bizarre neologism "Category:Deconverts to atheism", which you rightly and roundly rejected. But if you can spare a moment to comment, I'd like to know what you think of the newer proposal that another editor has suggested, Category:Formerly-religious atheists, which has attracted a fair amount of support. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll think about it, but to be honest I'm kinda losing interest, because IMRHO the whole thing is conceptually flawed from the outset. We've seen various attempts to apply the term "conversion" to atheism, construct a new word "deconvert", and so on ... and this well-intentioned new name introduces a new problem, because not all atheists are non-religious. I know plenty of them who go to church or synagogue for social reasons; they are religious in observance, but not in belief. The terse nomenclature of the category system just can't handle this sort of highly nuanced subject other than in very simplistic terms, which is why it's best to just avoid this sort of intersection: either categorise ppl as atheists, or don't ... but stay away from attempts to intersect that with other beliefs.

YMMV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

(Don't worry too much about the above - it's just a pro-forma thing. Thank you for your useful and positive contributions on the talk page mentioned above!). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your msg, ChrisO. You did great work developing a text to reflect the emerging consensus on the talk page on that article, and in readily accepting revisions to your draft which allowed a full consensus to develop.

Now that there is a resolution to the BLP issue which brought me in there, I don't intend to contribute any further to the article, and hope that things will stabilise there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. It has been a rather difficult process (as you no doubt noticed from your exchanges with Mindbuilder). However, I'm afraid the BLP issue which brought you there is potentially not over yet - Mindbuilder's last comments in that thread suggest that he still wants to add his OR to the article tomorrow. If that happens then it is likely to cause further problems. Could you please keep an eye on the article and be prepared to step in if this issue recurs? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think it's unlikely that I will do more. I have a pile of things to do before I go off on holiday, and will be winding down my edits tonight.

Good luck in keeping an eye on things. If Mindbuilder comes back with a reliable source there will be something to discuss, but MB's parting comments seemed to based on a desire to set aside WP:V, which is not a great idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Enjoy your holiday. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider participating in the deletion discussion for Category:Poetasters

Category:Poetasters has been nominated for deletion here. Last January, you participated in the previous deletion discussion (which resulted in a no-consensus keep), so you may have an interest in this one. Please consider participating. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. It was particularly courteous of you to notify me, since I strongly disagreed with you last time round. Will comment at CFD ... and no, I haven't changed my mind! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cathcart Wason

In May 2006, you left a comment on Cathcart Wason's talk page, and I've just responded to it! Maybe you want to reassess the article. If you feel like responding, please do so on that talk page, as I don't watchlist your page. Schwede66 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Guidance on a question

Hello, I wondered if I might ask for your guidance on a question. I had earlier created a category, which I would like to rename. I've seen discussions about same before, but haven't done it myself. How does one go about that? Many thanks in advance for your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marmaduke, there are two ways to go about it.

If it is a category which you recently created yourself, and which only you have populated, then you can just create the new category, populate it, then when the old category is empty, tag it with {{db-c1}}.

If it's a longer-established category, you should first see if it meets the seedy renaming criteria at WP:CFD/S ... and if those are inapplicable, use {{cfr|newname}} and follow the instructions to list the categ for discussion.

Hope this helps! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a category I created and that only i have populated (only two entries in it), but the cat was created quite some time ago. Would that qualify for WP:CFD/S? MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CFD/S depends on the nature of the renaming, not the number of articles. Without seeing the category or the proposed new name, I can't tell whether this category meets those criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The category is House of Levett, which I created. I created the cat based on the language used in the initial Anglo-Norman page, and created it when I was fairly new to wikipedia. As the family were never nobles or part of the peerage, the category overstates things, and I would like to rename it simply: Levett family. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Category:House of Levett dosen't fit the convention of Category:Anglo-Norman families, which is "foo family" rather than "house of foo", so that meets criterion C2.C of WP:CFD/S. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great, many thanks for your help. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Good luck :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

MPs

I'm a little puzzled, as I can not believe you do not rfully know this, but all MPs are individually notable. See WP:POLITICIAN. We do not merge them by constituency. Please stop putting A10 tags on them. I'm not sure what your point is, but it seems pointy--if the articles are sparse, add some information. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course the MPs are notable, per WP:BIO. However, as you should have noticed from the very clear speedy-deletion tags, notability was not the reason for deletion.

All of the articles which I tagged say less about the subject than is already said in the list articles on the constituencies, and as such they are speedily deleteable per WP:CSD#A10, because they serve no purpose to the reader. A reader who opens one of those articles from the link on the constituency page or a dab page will learn nothing about them from opening the page. That wastes the readers's time, and degrades their confidence that other pages contain anything.

Anyone who wants to do the research can of course create a stub article which actually has some content, but editors are not in any way helped by the existence of these substubs, and readers are positively impeded by them. That's why WP:CSD#A10 exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

there is no policy against stubs. Stubs can easily be added to by people who might have trouble startingan article.In any case, as you know very well also, once someone other than the originating author has removed a speedy tag, you may not replace it. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Drop the red herring: I have no objection to stubs. But these are not stubs, they are copy-pasted factoids which meet clear criteria for speedy deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Suchlike Le Passe-muraille. The only piece of information is that it is a 1951 Italian film, information that was already obvious from its presence in Italian films of 1951. –xeno^talk 19:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

...plenty more where that came from, but I'm not sure they meet the "Recently created" criterion. –xeno^talk 19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that these are not valid A10 deletions and should be restored. This is not what that criterion was intended for at all. If it is going to be used like this, I'll be the first in line to repeal it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Le Passe-muraille restored, since on checking it was a year old. Howver, look at the current state of the article: it consists in full, of the title and five words, plus an external link. What does that do for the reader? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Butting in here, it does nothing at all, apart from perhaps disappoint someone who went there looking for information. It looks like it was created en masse too. I can see the arguments for creating these sub-stubs - they are building foundations for new articles. But on the other hand, we must consider that Wikipedia's users are mostly readers and won't be interested in expanding it. I don't believe A10 fits in these cases as they are not recent creations, but they can certainly be prodded. It might be an idea to create a new CSD criterion, or expand an existing one, for substubs like the example you gave. The negatives of such articles outweigh the positives. Aiken ♫ 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better as a redlink. –xeno^talk 15:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree that a redlink is better than a redirect in such cases ... but in practice many of them will end up as redirects, because a vocal minority of editors doesn't like sub-stubs being deleted.

In the case of Le Passe-muraille, I'm pleased to see that someone has expanded it a bit by adding a short list of cast members. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Or Xeno, it could simply be expanded. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 16:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone disagrees it could be expanded. But unless and until it's expanded, it's just a nuisance for the reader. Whoever created it should have added some content at the time, rather than just leaving it there for readers to open in the false hope of finding some content.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been expanded even further. Unless the article is a copy vio or a is a potentially libel case by containing unreferenced claims about a BLP I really do not think you should be deleting articles like this, that goes for Boleyn's too. If you have a problem with a stub kindly ask the creator to expand. If they don't then delete it. I agree it was a useless stub but a stub canbe made into something half useful with only a few minutes work.. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 17:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed a stub can (in many cases) be expanded, tho an editor who encounters a sub-stub may not have suitable refs to hand to allow that to be done, or may not be ware of where to find such refs. If it was only a few minutes work to create a decent stub, then why start by creating something which even its creator agrees to have been useless? Complaining wheen other editors decline to tidy up a mess is not really very fair.

In the case of Le Passe-muraille, the expanded article turns out to be about a French film, not an Italian one ... so even though the 5 words of the sub-stub only asserted two facts, one of them was wrong. Luckily the page-view stats tell us that this useless and wrong sub-stub was read by only about one to three readers per month ... but really, it would have been much better to have A10 deleted it as soon as it was created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"If you have a problem with a stub kindly ask the creator to expand." <-- Please kindly expand each and every "Xxx is a yyy film" stub you've created. –xeno^talk 17:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Similar requests have been made repeatedly to Boleyn, but she perceives them as harassment, so I don't repeat them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Xeno you've got a nerve. I thought I expanded well over a hundreds such stubs under your command. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 18:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You did, but there's many more still out there... This is the work you cut out for yourself! –xeno^talk 18:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL Um, no actually I'm under no obligation to expand them, contrary to what you might think that I am your employee, working hard for the bureacrat. We are all volunteers here, I'm certain you forget this at times. I had thought you had caught them all in that previous list,obivously not. Early 50s Italian film I believe then, I'll expand them all in good time. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said you were obligated, but you said above that "If you have a problem with a stub kindly ask the creator to expand." I have a problem with any one-sentence formulaic article of the form "Xxx is a yyy zzz" where the same information is contained in the "List of zzz". So I kindly asked you to expand them! –xeno^talk 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Dr B, it's a long-standing principle that editors are responsible for the quality of the content they add to wikipedia. It's not a matter of you or anyone else being anybody's employee, simply of all editors not leaving a mess for others to clean up.

And BTW, if you post to my talk page, please don't leave an edit summary with a section header which points to a different section. It creates unnecessary nuisance to anyone wanting to reply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Undeleting articles

Please restore the following articles you deleted and I will do my best to help reference expand a little if I can:

• Sir William Russell, 1st Baronet, of Wytley
• Thomas Stanley (1749–1816)
• Henry Norris (English politician)
• Thomas Wallace (MP)
• Sir Alexander Allan, 1st Baronet
• Thomas Browne Wallace
• Robert Hall (MP)
• John Griffith (1687–1739)
• James Butler (1651–1696)
• John White (1634–1713)
• Sir William Williams, 6th Baronet
• Henry Jones (MP)
• Thomas Davies (politician)
• John Charles Wilson
• John Matthews (politician)
• Thomas Wood (1708-1799)
• Sir John Chapman, 2nd Baronet
• Sir William Wray, 1st Baronet, of Ashby
• John Chapman (1810-1877)
• John Campbell (Scottish politician)
• John Campbell (1798–1830)
• William Adams (MP)
• John Campbell (Northern Irish politician)
• Henry Holmes (d.1738)
• John Campbell (Irish politician)
• John Gordon Drummond Campbell
• John Hall (Buckingham MP)
• Thomas Samuel Beauchamp Williams
• John Stanley (1740-1799)
• John Parker (MP)
• Edward Berkeley
• William Moore (1699-1746)
• John Williams (Macclesfield MP)
• John Williams (Windsor MP)
• John Williams (d. 1751)
• Sir John Williams, 2nd Baronet, of Eltham
• John Williams (died 1743)
• Robert Jones (d. 1715)
• Baptist Noel (MP)
• William Henry Flanagan
• John Kerr (British politician)
• Robert Thomas Jones
• William Oliver (UK politician)
• Thomas Watson (Berwick-upon-Tweed MP)
• Robert Jones (d. 1774)
• John Wells (19th century politician)
• Thomas Bacon (politician)
• Tom Forrest Howard
• Alexander Robertson (MP)
• William John Lane
• Edward Lewis (Devizes MP)
• William Stanley (1640-1670)
• Sir Charles Turner, 2nd Baronet
• John Heathcote (d. 1795)
• John Buxton (politician)
• Charles Henry Williams
• Thomas Eustace Smith
• John Fleming (Devonport MP)
• Thomas Atkins (MP)
• Richard Pates (MP)
• Arthur Porter (MP)
• Sir Marmaduke Wyvill, 1st Baronet
• George Horsey
• Edward Baeshe
• John Brograve
• George Catelyn

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Blofeld (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 August 2010

I will now undelete the first five, for you to be getting on with, and put them in your userspace.

However, there are over 60 of these deleted sub-stubs, and doing something substantive to them all will involve a lot of work. They all contain so little content that there's not much gain in starting from what was there, and many of them have serious errors of fact, because as Boleyn acknowledged most of them were created without any examination of reliable source; most were just copy-pasted from dab pages, and a few seemed to have been based on existing WP articles.

If you seriously want to use them as the basis for a proper stub, that's up to you, but I'd seriously advise you to consider starting from fresh, using reliable sources to add facts rather than looking for sources to conform all the errors. However, if you really do want to work by expanding the sub-stubs, let me know and I'll restore them to your userspace. The problems which led to their deletion are such that I won't be responsible for putting them back in mainspace unless they are fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you rather I opened another ANI about you and requested that another administrator restore them or would kindly restore them so that they can referenced within the next few days. None of them are BLPs so this shouldn't be a problem. It is just a waste of everybody's time to delete article which you know are notable and will be recreated at a later date. I had hoped that Boleyn had learned her lesson last time about sourcing. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you 30 minutes to begin restoring these, otherwise I'm be moving this to ANI and reqesting another administrator restore them so they can be worked on. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Blofeld, your angry tone is uncalled for. After adding the sig you neglected to add, I typed out a reply to you, and then saved it to find that you had added the rant above. Please calm down; going to ANI to complain that I took five minutes to type out a reply to you is not a great idea.

None of them are BLPs, but as agreed above by other editors, the sub-stubs are a waste of reader's time, and per policy unref material should not be reinstated to mainspace.

From the core policy WP:V: As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons" (Jimmy Wales Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information, WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006, accessed June 11, 2006). Note that Jimbo does not say that this applies only to living people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll list them here as I restore and userify them:

1. User:Dr. Blofeld/Sir William Russell, 1st Baronet, of Wytley
2. User:Dr. Blofeld/Thomas Stanley (1749–1816)
3. User:Dr. Blofeld/Henry Norris (English politician)

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

1. User:Dr. Blofeld/Thomas Wallace (MP)
2. User:Dr. Blofeld/Sir Alexander Allan, 1st Baronet

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that for a lot of these articles I can't find any sources. Boleyn has access to a lot of material. Ohhh I do wish she'd sourced them first time. After all that happened too. Never mind if you'll kindly restore them all to my work space I'll source the ones I can and ask Boleyn to reference/expand them before they are restarted, Thankyou. It wasn't an angry rant at you, just frustration more than antyhing that despite all that happened we seme to be going around in circles. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 18:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)At last, we agree on something! :)

The lack of available sources for the older ones is one of the points I have noted for over a month, and it's one of the reasons why I will not restore them to mainspace: despite my belief in your good intentions, I am not persuaded that sources will be easy to come by for many of them, so I'll leave it to you to move them mainspace if and when you can source them.

The reason that Boleyn didn't add refs to reliable sources is simply that she did not use any reliable sources in most cases: she was simply copy-pasting from dab pages, despite wikipedia being an unreliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you restore them all to User:Dr. Blofeld/DNB. They are mostly one liners so should easily fit. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's more work than I want to do, and in any case I will not be a party to putting them under a DNB header unless I have verified that they are something to do with the DNB. I'll restore them to your userspace; therefater, if you want to make a list of them or merge them, or whatever, that's up to you. I need to go out now, but having done the first five, I'll do the others later tonight.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK don't worry about restoring any more for noe. Some of them are a nightmare to source. Well I understand Boleyn has the ONDB so her sourcing these types of articles shouldn't be problem. The concern I agree is that they are not sourced and may be original research. I hope Boleyn learns from this and that in the long run it is best to source articles upon creation. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave them for now, but pls do come back to me if/when u want them userified. My concern is not just that they are unsourced, but that if even if referenced hey would still be pointless unless they say more than the constituency articles.

As to Boleyn learning from this ... well, we can all live in hope. However after more than a month of her work being scrutinised, she is still restoring and creating sub-stubs, and still adding falsehoods and misleading statements to articles. Dr. B, we need your continued good work here ... so please please please please please don't hold your breath. Your body needs oxygen well before the flying pigs are lit by a blue moon over satan's ice rink. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

PS I will be way from some time in the middle of next week, for about a month. (Had intended yo be away from last wk, but my itinerary got chopped in two, so I had a short break last weekend and am heading off again on about the 12th). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page. Remember though we are all on the same side and love each other passionately. LOL. Can you find the right category for Thomas Stanley (1749–1816). I can find a 1801 cat but not 178-. I do hope I have it right I'm sure the UK parliment started in 1707. Well I think that deep down Boleyn is a good egg and her heart is definately in the right place but she just needs a bit of help and to be more consistent I think and to learn that unsourced stubs are likely to be deleted by you. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Love you too baby :) ;)

However, in that spirit of mutual ecsatasy ... I'm sorry to say that you are wrong. The Parliament of the United Kingdom was created in 1801, when the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created by the merger of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland under the Acts of Union. This is all set out at Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and in each of its five national sub-cats such as Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies.

Since Thomas Stanley (1749–1816) was an MP in the 1780s, he was at that time a member of the Parliament of Great Britain ... so for the period 1780-1800 he belongs in Category:Members of the Parliament of Great Britain (or rather in some of its subcats).

As to Boleyn ... well, I started out assuming as I do with everyone else that she is acting on good faith. But even after this length of time, when I and so any other editors have pointed out to her that sub-stubs are pointless, and that facts need to be checked, she is still fixated on quantity rather than on quality; even when she uses references, she frequently misuses them to support facts not in the refs, and her articles are full of serious but straightforward factual errors. I want to assume in good faith that she doesn't do this as vandalism, but to assume that she has some difficulty in understanding the topics she chooses to write about. But if it is simply a matter of not figuring out how to do it right, then a genuinely good-hearted editor would seek a mentor or create drats in userspace and ask others to review them. So I dunno; she may well be a good person, but her attempts to create a flood of new articles on wikipedia remain a problem which she refuses to resolve, and whatever the causes of that, it should have been abundantly clear to her a long time ago that the result is bad for wikipedia. I simply cannot believe that an editor who was both genuinely a good egg would continue to stand over such abysmal editing despite all the criticism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Well Boleyn has created a lot of valid DNB articles recently so I think "abysmal" is a bit harsh even if some of her past stubs are problematic. I can see that a lot of unsourced articles and minor errors like categories, dabbing etc winds you up and when you see a run of them you think, "the cleanup is huge". The biggest concern was sourcing I think, if there are any outstanding list them in the link given below. I will try to help fix the problems. But time is needed, there is no big rush!!

The easiest thing is for you to restore the lot to the workspace and you have my words I'll have all of them sourced and categories added by this time tomorrow evening. I'll be logging out in about 30 minutes. If you don't want to I'll ask another admin to restore the articles on condition that I source/fix the problems tomorrow. You can trust me on this. It will make it so much easier to not have to keep copying form my workspace etc. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Boleyn has not "created a lot of valid DNB articles". She has created a lot of abysmal and CSD-A10-able sub-stubs, a small minority of which were about people who were identified by other editors as having DNB entries. That would have been better achieved by her simply making a list of redlinks and inviting other editors to identify the DNB-covered topics.

As to no big rush, well ... Boleyn at her peak was churning out dozens of new sub-stubs a day, with apparently no checking whatsoever of the facts. If you have a complaint about haste, take it to Boleyn.

So-called "articles" which contain nothing but a single sentence of text cop-pasted from a dab page have added nothing to wikipedia, so their deletion or redirection is no loss, so you needn't make haste to do anything with them. They can be re-created to the same state in the same few seconds that Boleyn took to create them.

Your final comment confuses me. You wrote above "don't worry about restoring any more for noe. Some of them are a nightmare to source", but now you say "restore the lot to the workspace". Is that you changing your mind and now wanting them restored to your userspace? If that's it, then no prob, but pls clarify. (And, I don't know what you mean by "workspace", but I simply will not restore that crapflood to mainspace. If restored, it'll go in userspace). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)